" 'Israel has a very powerful lobby in this country, with a highly accomplished
propaganda corps. And that lobby is not content with making the case for Israel
and putting fear into nearly all the politicians in Washington, who are supposed
to be representing the interests of the United States. It also tries to shut up
opposition in the free press.

"That is why 'nobody thinks it odd that there should be 20 columnists who are
apologists for Israel,' said Sobran, 'but apparently it is unfathomable that
there should be one or two who are critical of Israel.' "

Are these claims accurate? First of all, the term "Israel lobby" is a misnomer.
Jensen / Sobran are referring to Americans who are exercising their
constitutional right to write or lobby on public affairs.

The phrase creates a false impression that pro-Israel Americans are acting under
the control of the government of Israel, rather than acting independently in
support of policies they think are best for America. A better term would be
"pro-Israel lobby."

Is it really true that there are "20 columnists who are apologists for Israel"
and hardly any critics? Certainly there are plenty of columnists - many of whom
can be found in the pages of The Denver Post and the News - who tend to be
strongly supportive of Israel.

The truly anti-Israel perspective, on the other hand, is basically non-existent
in the Post and the News, except in letters to the editor, or very occasional
op-ed pieces.

The middle viewpoint, which happens to be Jensen's, is that Israel has a right
to exist, but that Israeli policies have been too aggressive: building
settlements in the West Bank, invading Lebanon, taking indiscriminate military
action against Palestinians, annexing part of the Golan Heights, and refusing to
make sufficient concessions for peace. The middle, moderately critical view
thinks that the Oslo "peace process" was a great idea, and blames many of the
current problems in the Mideast on Israeli intransigent refusal to "give peace a
chance."

Notwithstanding Jensen's complaints, this middle view is the dominant one in
American media. It is the frame for most network news coverage of Israel,
especially from CNN, National Public Radio, and ABC's Peter Jennings. It is
pervasive in New York Times reporting on Israel (and thus, pervasive in the Post
and the News, who use the Times for a large share of their foreign coverage). It
is even more pervasive in Times editorials, also heavily represented in the Post
and News.

So whatever the so-called "Israel lobby" might wish, the mainstream media in
Colorado and the United States are hardly in the hands of "apologists for
Israel."

And while pro-Israel Americans are hardly the only people who play the media
criticism game, they do happen to be particularly adept and experienced at it.
There are even groups whose entire function is to serve as pro-Israel media
watchdogs, such the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America,
and Honest Reporting ( www.honestreporting.com ). Conversely, criticism of the
media for favoring Israel comes from the leftist mediawatch group FAIR
( www.fair.org/international/middle-east.html
) and from the Media Monitors
Network ( www.mediamonitors.net ). Given the large number of American media
outlets, all the above groups have no shortage of things to complain about.

Unfortunately, incendiary, inappropriate charges are sometimes hurled. In this
vein, columnists like Jensen or the Post's Reggie Rivers may be called
"anti-Semitic."

These charges are nonsense. The debate between critics like Jensen/Rivers on the
one hand and pro-Israel advocates like William Safire/George Will on the other
hand is a simpler version of a debate that goes on within Israel itself. And
since Israeli Jews are, obviously, not anti-Semitic, it is wrong to suggest that
American journalists who hold similar views are necessarily anti-Semitic.

My advice to people who don't like the viewpoint in Jensen's
columns (or in somebody else's for that matter): instead of asking the newspaper
to fire them, ask the newspaper to add someone with a different perspective. The
Atlanta Journal-Constitution, after years with a very narrow-minded and very
hard left editorial section, recently added a third page to editorials, to make
room for some conservative columnists and op-eds from readers.

In my last column, I castigated the Post for not interviewing a Circuit City
employee who was fired for allegedly racially profiling some Arab customers.
Although the Post's Oct. 18 story did not contain an interview with the
employee, their Oct. 19 follow-up story did.

Share this page:

Click
the icon to get RSS/XML updates of this website, and of Dave's articles.

Make a donation to support Dave Kopel's work in defense of constitutional
rights and public safety.

Nothing written here is to be construed as
necessarily representing the views of the Independence Institute or as an
attempt to influence any election or legislative action. Please send
comments to Independence Institute, 727 East 16th Ave., Colorado 80203. Phone 303-279-6536. (email) webmngr @ i2i.org